In the second report of our two-part series on the grassroots effort to remove Flock cameras from the Valley, we look at how Virginia law allows Flock to operate and how the opposition to the cameras spans the political spectrum. WMRA’s Bridget Manley reports.
Read and listen to part one here.
At a packed meeting last month in Elkton, the town council made a surprise move. Following a public comment period filled with residents opposed to automatic license plate reader – or ALPR – cameras, members of the council moved to amend the agenda and cancel their contract with Flock, the company at the center of the controversy.
JOSH GOODEN: Two residents had reached out to me with their concerns, and had shared that they were planning to come and speak at the meeting. I wasn’t aware that a council member was going to bring it up as an action item, but of course, once that happened, I ensured that it had a place on the agenda for council to take what action they felt was necessary.
Josh Gooden is the mayor of the town of Elkton.
GOODEN: The council just felt like it was probably better off to not have those in town.
Many of the fears that people have regarding the Flock cameras concern uses of the technology that are now illegal in Virginia, thanks to a bill signed into law in 2025. It prohibits law enforcement from sharing data with federal agencies such as ICE, prohibits them from using the technology for personal use, harassment, or targeting people based on race or gender, or for ticketing enforcement.
BRYAN HUTCHESON: The Code of Virginia is very specific on how they can be utilized.
Bryan Hutcheson is the Rockingham County Sheriff.
HUTCHESON: There is not much grey area if you really read that code section; it spells it out very clearly. And we have to follow the law, I mean, no different than anything else.
However, there have been multiple cases of police officers misusing the technology across the country, a problem Hutcheson admits.The Washington Post reported that over 50 law enforcement officers have been accused of misusing the technology to stalk or harass victims.
HUTCHESON: If the lieutenant runs a plate and he does not have a reason to do it, well, that’s a class one misdemeanor.
Hutcheson said that if a person suspects an officer has run their tags for a non-criminal purpose, including using Flock cameras, they can access those records through the DMV. State law requires that those records be retained for two years.
HUTCHESON: VSP (Virginia State Police) would be able to say, absolutely, he did run it at the exact time, 11:33 AM, on July the 31st. He didn’t have a reason to do it; he committed a class one misdemeanor. And we would charge him. Without exception.
The cameras have been used to help law enforcement with Amber and Silver Senior Alerts, finding kidnapped children and seniors with dementia. While discussing the cameras’ removal at a recent city council meeting, Harrisonburg Mayor Deanna Reed said they helped locate a family member.
DEANNA REED: And I was a little torn, because I tell this story. You know, it was not too long ago, I had an uncle who had dementia, and he got on the road, and he drove four hours away. And if it wasn’t for the Flock cameras, we wouldn’t have been able to find him. We found him in Bluefield, Virginia, and got him back home safely.
HUTCHESON: Like, I think some of the perception has been that it’s this surveillance, or that somehow we are tracking people. And my first thing to that would be, why? Why do we care if you were at the movie theater? Well, why does law enforcement care?
Hutcheson says that the cameras are a tool and that the idea that police are using them to track people outside of criminal offenses makes no sense.
HUTCHESON: If you want to know what’s tracking people, it’s the cell phone. The cell phone that everybody has in their pocket is not just tracking where you are, but what you are doing, who you are talking to, and what you are looking up on the web too.
ANNA CUBBAGE: I can opt in to any of these services and opt out of them. I don’t get that choice with Flock.
Anna Cubbage, a Bridgewater resident who is working to oppose the cameras, argues cell phones are different.
CUBBAGE: And that’s a point that people are forgetting. Also, my cell data is not accessible unless there is a warrant.
The opposition to the cameras spans the political spectrum.
MARK HOPP: At the meeting in Elkton, I literally, I know one guy who [is] very pro-life, a preacher, part-time preacher, and he was sitting in the same – two chairs down – from another girl who I know is very pro-choice and much more liberal. And there they were, side by side, fighting for the same thing.
Mark Hopp lives in Staunton, where he advocated for that city to remove its cameras. He continues to work with others across the Valley towards their removal.
HOPP: So, it’s really across the spectrum, and I think we, as humans, just don’t want to be watched. We don’t want to be watched.
Whether Bridgewater residents will have the same success remains to be seen. Bridgewater Mayor Ted Flory sent a statement to WMRA in response to an interview request about the Deflock campaign.
Flory said that while Flock cameras have helped solve several crimes, the current police chief, Phillip Read, will retire soon, and “any decision about the future of ALPRs in Bridgewater will be made by the town council and staff after a new chief is in place.”
